Ch03 Laws Their Sources.docx

CHAPTER 3: LAWS: THEIR SOURCES TRANSPARENCY MASTERS Constitutional Law Federal Constitution Case Law (vocabulary) Tennessee v. Garner Statutory Law Statutory Law (vocabulary) PURPOSE AND SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT The purpose of this chapter is to introduce students to the different sources of laws: constitutions, cases, and codes. Each source is explained and examples are provided. CHAPTER OUTLINE Technology Corner Case File 3-1 Introduction 3-2 Constitutional Law The Federal Constitution State Constitutions 3-3 Case Law Common Law Case Law–Interpretation of Constitutional and Statutory Law Case Law–The Power to Invalidate Statutory Law Case Law–The Factual Controversy Stare Decisis 3-4 Statutory Law The Legislative Process—The Federal Government The Legislative Process–States 3-4 Administrative Regulations Featured Website Chapter Summary Terms to Remember Questions for Review Questions for Analysis Assignments and Projects SKILL BUILDING The case questions, assignments, and projects give students the opportunity to build the following skills: Critical Analysis Investigation Interviewing Writing CASE SUMMARIES, CASE QUESTIONS, AND SUGGESTED ANSWERS Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (Pg. 49) This case concerns the criminal action brought against the police officers in the Rodney King beating. The officers were convicted of criminal charges under the federal civil rights statute. The trial judge then imposed sentence. Under federal law, sentencing must follow certain guidelines, established by a special commission established by Congress. These guidelines provide sentencing standards. The trial judge is allowed to depart from these standards or times only under certain circumstances. In the Koon case, the trial judge considered various factors and reduced the sentence, departing from the standard sentence. In particular the trial court considered the effect of the conviction on their employment, the fact that this was a first offense, and the hardship to the officers because of the dual prosecution by both state and federal authorities. The government appealed. The Supreme Court held that the first two factors could not be considered by the trial court in sentencing, because they were already reflected in the sentencing guidelines. The hardship caused by double prosecution could be considered, however. The Supreme Court remanded the case for reevaluation. What law is the court interpreting here? Be specific. Suggested Answer: The Court is interpreting The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 as amended in 18 U.S.C. §3551 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. §§991-998. What was the factual controversy in this case? Suggested Answer: The factual controversy was whether or not the trial judge abused his discretion in sentencing by reducing the sentence based on three factors: (1) the effect of the conviction on their employment, (2) the fact that it was a first offense, and (3) the extraordinary hardship caused by two separate prosecutions. Would this case have any applicability in determining if Hardtack used excessive force? Explain. Suggested Answer: This case has nothing to do with what constitutes excessive force. It is limited to issues relating to sentencing. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (Pg. 53) In this case a young burglary suspect was shot and killed by a police officer while attempting to flee the scene of the crime. He was not armed. The father of the victim filed a civil lawsuit against the police officer and the state. The officer was acting in accordance with a state law that authorized the use of deadly force under this circumstance. At trial, the court found in favor of all defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed, stating that the use of force in this case violated the U.S. Constitution because it was unreasonable. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals. The use of force in making an arrest must be reasonable. The use of deadly force is generally limited to situations where the perpetrator posed an immediate and serious threat to those around him. In reaching its decision the Court explores the history of this area of law, commenting on the common law rule that one could shoot a fleeing felon and explaining why the rule is no longer appropriate. Which Constitutional provisions apply to this case and how do they apply? Suggested Answer: Fourth Amendment—The shooting was part of the arrest, and the Fourth Amendment states that arrests must be reasonable. Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution also apply here. What statutory law is the Court interpreting here? Suggested Answer: Tenn. Code Ann. § 407108 (1982). Did the Court strike down the Tennessee statute? Quote the language that applies. Suggested Answer: The Court did not strike down the Tennessee statute in its entirety, only as applied in this type of situation. “It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.” What common law rule was mentioned by the Court? Suggested Answer: The Court discusses the common-law rule that one could use deadly force against a fleeing felon. Why did the Court not follow the common law rule? Suggested Answer: The common law was no longer needed. The common law rule occurred at a time when the killing of a resisting or fleeing felon resulted in no greater consequences than those authorized for punishment of the felony of which the individual was charged or suspected. Courts have also justified the commonlaw rule by emphasizing the relative dangerousness of felons. Neither of these justifications makes sense today. Almost all crimes formerly punishable by death no longer are or can be. And while in earlier times the gulf between the felonies and the minor offences was broad and deep, today the distinction is minor and often arbitrary. Many crimes classified as misdemeanors, or nonexistent, at common law are now felonies. These changes have undermined the concept, which was questionable to begin with, that use of deadly force against a fleeing felon is merely a speedier execution of someone who has already forfeited his life. They have also made untenable the assumption that a “felon” is more dangerous than a misdemeanant. There is an additional reason why the common law rule cannot be directly translated to the present day. The commonlaw rule developed at a time when weapons were rudimentary. Deadly force could be inflicted almost solely in a handtohand struggle during which, necessarily, the safety of the arresting officer was at risk. Handguns were not carried by police officers until the latter half of the last century. Only then did it become possible to use deadly force from a distance as a means of apprehension. As a practical matter, the use of deadly force under the standard articulation of the commonlaw rule has an altogether different meaning – and harsher consequences – now than in past centuries. In this case, the Court found that the use of deadly force in arresting an individual is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Hardtack is accused of using excessive force (not deadly). Does this case apply to Hardtack? Why or why not? Quote language in the case that supports your position. Suggested Answer: Yes, this case would apply to Hardtack. “A police officer may arrest a person if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976). Petitioners and appellant argue that if this requirement is satisfied the Fourth Amendment has nothing to say about how that seizure is made. This submission ignores the many cases in which this Court, by balancing the extent of the intrusion against the need for it, has examined the reasonableness of the manner in which a search or seizure is conducted. It is plain that reasonableness depends on not only when a seizure is made, but also how it is carried out.” Hardtack is accused of using excessive force in making an arrest. How he made the arrest is an issue. This case would apply. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) (Pg. 57) In this case several young Negro men were tried and convicted of a capital offense in the state court of Alabama. The young men were poor and illiterate. They were not given the opportunity to secure counsel for their defense. They were convicted and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. What law is this Court interpreting? Be specific. Suggested Answer: The Court is interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in particular the due process clause. Review the definition of the term remand from the previous chapter. Were the defendants in this case set free by the Court? Suggested Answer: No, the defendants were not set free. They were ordered to stand trial again, this time with adequate counsel. Does the decision in this case apply to all felony cases? Quote the language in the case that supports your answer. Suggested Answer: The decision does not apply to all felony cases. The Court said “we are of the opinion that, under the circumstances just stated, the necessity of counsel was so vital and imperative that the failure of the trial court to make an effective appointment of counsel was likewise a denial of due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether this would be so in other criminal prosecutions, or under other circumstances, we need not determine. All that it is necessary now to decide, as we do decide, is that in a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign.” This case started in the Alabama courts. Is it binding in your state? Explain. Suggested Answer: Yes. This was a decision on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, it is binding on all states. What are the various sources of law relied upon by this Court in its decisions. Give examples from the case? Suggested Answer: The Court relies on Constitutional law (citing both the U.S. and Alabama state Constitutions), case law (citing the Holden decision), and statutory law (citing the Alabama statute dealing with rape). What did the Supreme Court say about possible violations of the Alabama state constitution? Explain. Suggested Answer: The Court said it was not up to it to decide those issues. It was concerned with the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution of Alabama provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel; and a state statute requires the court in a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, to appoint counsel for him. The state supreme court held that these provisions had not been infringed, and the Supreme Court said it was powerless to interfere with that decision. STATUTORY LAW, QUESTIONS, AND SUGGESTED ANSWERS Federal Statutory Law (United States Code): 18 U.S.C. § 242 makes it a crime for anyone acting under color of authority to deprive another person of any Constitutional right because of color or race. State Statutory Law Battery Defined A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another. Punishment for battery. A battery is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment. California Penal Code §§242, 243 Review the facts in the memo at the beginning of the chapter. Has Hardtack violated the federal statute? Explain Suggested Answer: Hardtack was a police officer on duty, so he was acting under color of authority. If he used excessive force and if he did so because of the race of the arrested individual, there is a violation. At this point, students should be encouraged not to assume that excessive force and a racial motive exist. Has Hardtack violated the state statute? Suggested Answer: The state statutes are less restrictive than the federal statute. However, it must be shown that unlawful force was used. If Hardtack is charged with violating the federal statute, which court would hear the trial? Suggested Answer: Federal District Court. ETHICAL CHOICES Assume that you work for the prosecutor’s office. You are organizing a file in preparation for trial and come across the name and telephone number of a witness who identified the perpetrator of the crime as someone other than the defendant named in the case. It does not appear from the file that the defense attorney has been advised of this fact. You bring this to the attention of the attorney handling the case who tells you to forget about it. After all it isn’t the prosecutor’s job to defend anyone accused of a crime. What do you do? (Pg. 62) Points to Discuss: How does confidentiality affect this? Does the law require that this be disclosed? (It probably does under the Brady decision.) Whether or not the law requires it, do basic ethics require it? What do you do when you think an attorney you work for is doing something unethical? Assume that you work for the public defender’s office. You are organizing a file in preparation for trial and come across the name and telephone number of a witness who positively identified the perpetrator of the crime as the defendant named in the case. You are fairly certain that the prosecutor does not know of this witness. You bring this to the attention of the attorney handling the case who tells you to forget about it. After all it isn’t the defense attorney’s job to worry about this. The defendant, your client, has been accused of child molestation. What do you do? (Pg. 62) Points to Discuss: How does this differ from the situation above? Do you owe any obligation to society or potential victims of crime? Distinguish between identifiable victims and possible unknown victims. QUESTIONS FOR ANALYSIS 1. Review the Bill of Rights, found in Appendix I, and refer to the Case File at the beginning of the chapter. If Hardtack is accused of any crimes, what rights does he have? Does it matter if he is charged with a federal crime or a state crime? Review the Heath case in Chapter 2 and the Koon case in this chapter. Based on these cases, could Hardtack be prosecuted for both state and federal crimes for his actions? Suggested Answer Hardtack has the rights mentioned in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. If charged with a state crime, the rights will be basically the same because of the 14th Amendment. Based on the Heath and Koon cases, he could be tried for both state and federal crimes. 2. A group of concerned parents in the city of Elmwood wants to see a curfew imposed on anyone under the age of eighteen. How can they get such a law imposed (i.e., legislative action, court case)? Suggested Answer: They would have to try to get local authorities to pass a law. Since there is no existing controversy, there can be no court case. 3. Peter, Paul, and Mary are sixteen-year-olds who live in Elmwood, a city with a 10 p.m. curfew for anyone under the age of eighteen. They think the law is unfair and violates their constitutional rights, and they want it changed. How can they go about doing this? Suggested Answer: They could try to get the city legislative body to repeal the law. Alternatively, they could file a lawsuit, but they would probably have to violate the curfew and be cited for it. 4. Review the Ethical Choices in this chapter. Which NALA and/or NFPA ethical rules or guidelines apply to the situations? Review your state’s ethical rules (hint: go to www.nala.org and find a link). Which of those rules apply? Suggested Answer: The NALA and NFPA rules are found in Appendix II of the text. State’s rules will vary. . Chapter 3: Laws: Their Sources True/False The U.S. Constitution establishes and defines the various departments of the federal and state governments. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The U.S. Supreme Court has the power to declare state laws unconstitutional. All case law originates with a factual controversy between two or more parties. The concept of stare decisis prevents one Supreme Court from overruling decisions of prior Supreme Courts. Courts of appeals in the various states decide many cases that never become stare decisis. (italicize?) All federal bills are first introduced in the House of Representatives. When the President refuses to either sign or veto proposed legislation, the bill is automatically vetoed. The initiative process allows citizens in the United States to enact either federal or state law. Administrative regulations are laws passed by various governmental boards, departments, commissions, and agencies. Multiple Choice The U.S. Constitution established the federal government established state governments established both state and federal governments has nothing to do with the establishment of government; it merely sets out the rights of Americans none of the above The Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution consists of the first 14 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution is another name for the U.S. Constitution deals exclusively with the rights of criminal defendants both a and d State Constitutions establish state governments are often patterned after the U.S. Constitution are the supreme law of the state in questions of state law all of the above none of the above A system in which laws were developed through the courts and case decisions is: federalism common law civil law all of the above none of the above Another term for stare decisis (italicize?) is: precedent common law statutory law initiative referendum The court resolves disputes by: making new laws to meet the situation asking the legislature to make a new law to meet the situation applying existing constitutional, statutory, and case law to the situation applying only existing case law or precedent to the situation none of the above Stare decisis(italicize?) requires that: all courts follow decisions of all other courts all courts follow only those decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court trial courts follow all decisions from appellate courts all appellate courts follow all decisions of other appellate courts none of the above The Statutes at Large are a topical organization of statutory law are a chronological organization of statutory law is another name for code are easily used by legal researchers both b and c When the President is sent a bill that has been passed by both houses and refuses to sign or veto the proposed legislation, it always becomes law after ten days never becomes law (the pocket veto) becomes law after ten days if Congress adjourns is vetoed after ten days if Congress adjourns none of the above Administrative regulations come from federal boards, departments, commissions, and agencies state boards, departments, commission, and agencies federal courts state courts both a and b Answer Key 1. False 2. True 3. True 4. True 5. False 6. True 7. False 8. False 9. False 10. True 1.a 2.a 3.d. 4.b 5.a 6.c 7.e 8.b 9.d 10.e